2019 (5) TMI 1231 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - rejection for the reason that the appellant had not fulfilled the conditions stipulated under the Notification No. 12/2013 which is extracted at page-2 of the SCN - HELD THAT - For the periods in dispute viz., from 2013-14, both the SCNs dated 25.05.2017 have been issued and it appears that the appellant had submitted that it had effected reversal of credit which was also disclosed in their returns for April, 2013 to September, 2014. There is no dispute as to the appellant satisfying the other conditions of the said Notification and it is the settled position of law that a mere procedural lapse cannot take away the substantial benefit, more so, when there is no dispute as to the eligibility to the benefits of a beneficial Notification. Nor is the case of Revenue that there has been violation to any other provision/s of the Statute or Rules. Undisputedly, there was some requirements lacking in terms of Notifications which, upon being pointed out per SCN, the appellant has complied with. The denial of refund is unsustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refund claim under Notification No. 12/2013 and Notification No. 40/2012 for Business Process Outsourcing services - Rejection of refund claims in Show Cause Notices - Orders-in-Original sanctioning partial refund - Rejection of claims by Commissioner (Appeals) - Compliance with conditions of Notifications - Denial of refund - Appeal decision.

Analysis:

1. Refund Claim under Notifications:
The appellant provided Business Process Outsourcing services categorized under Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) and Business Support Services (BSS). They filed a refund claim under Notification No. 12/2013-ST and Notification No. 40/2012-ST for the periods January 2013 to March 2013 and January 2014 to March 2014. Two Show Cause Notices dated 25.05.2017 proposed to reject the refund claims due to alleged non-fulfillment of conditions stipulated in Notification No. 12/2013. The appellant objected to the rejection proposals made in the SCN.

2. Orders and Appeals:
Orders-in-Original were passed by the adjudicating authority sanctioning a partial refund. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claims, stating that the adjudicating authority exceeded the scope of the SCN for rejecting the partial refund. The appellant's contentions were not considered, leading to the dismissal of their appeals.

3. Contention of the Parties:
The appellant's consultant argued that the appellant had fulfilled the conditions of the Notifications, while the Revenue's representative contended that the authorities correctly granted refunds when the conditions were met. The Revenue emphasized that the absence of mentioning a Rule or condition in the SCN did not invalidate it, citing supportive case laws.

4. Tribunal's Analysis and Decision:
The Tribunal reviewed the contentions and lower authorities' orders. It noted that the appellant had claimed to have reversed credit and complied with the requirements for the periods in dispute. The Tribunal found that the appellant had satisfied conditions other than a procedural lapse regarding the time limit for refund claims. It emphasized that a procedural error should not negate a substantial benefit under a beneficial Notification, especially when eligibility is undisputed. As there was no violation of statutory provisions or rules, the Tribunal held that the denial of refund was unjustified. Consequently, it set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential benefits as per law.

5. Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision on 21.02.2019 favored the appellant, overturning the denial of the refund claim and providing relief based on the compliance with the Notification conditions and the absence of substantial violations.